LP of Florida wants to distance itself from anarchist/voluntarists!

An article in the Libertarian Party of Florida's online newsletter, entitled "The Libertarian Problem with Anarchy", by Tom Rhodes. I find this pretty sad... back when I was involved with the LP in the 90s, it was largely a group of anarchists/voluntarists who hadn't yet completely given up on inside-the-system activism. I guess the LP really is dead, huh?

brill 4 years 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago

Are those in the LPFL malicious for stating this flawed view of libertarianism? I don't think so. They're probably newcomers to the libertarian movement, who simply don't yet grasp the full implications of liberty. At least they've joined the LP, which means they "get" that government doesn't work. So let's push them a bit further, and educate them on how how a truly Voluntary Society would benefit all!

ssj12 4 years 3 weeks 1 day 49 min ago

southernpatriot 4 years 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago

Sadly, I see no reference to the non-aggression principle in this article from the Florida LP.
The Republicanization of the LP is in full-swing; as was obvious by the 2010 Florida LP Senate candidate who supported the "fair" tax, school vouchers & his position on immigration appears to be questionable.
http://www.ontheissues.org/International/Alexander_Snitker_Immigration.htm

bte 4 years 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago

In a continuation of the LP's misguided attempts to become more relevant, Mr. Rhodes argues the party should ignore its near 40-year foundation, and its mantra to this day - "The Party of Principle" - and instead, strive to water down small-"l" libertarian principles in favor of expedient political positions that are "acceptable to the general public." But the general public is now--more than ever--crying-out for more freedom from growing oppression and tyranny by the state. That is, Rhodes would have the party further abandon its principles and rush onto the "sinking ship" of the American two-party political system, whilst growing numbers of the general public jump off into life rafts and paddle toward liberty island. Certainly, in passing, the unprincipled positions of the LP might briefly match those of a large number of Americans. But such an unprincipled LP will nonetheless "sink" along with the other parties. {P} Rhodes confusingly argues that the growing numbers and influence of anarchists and libertines (and implicitly, voluntaryists), which arguably represent the non-politically-evicerated philosophical basis of LP principles, should be shunned as "Utopian" ideology. As just one example, Rhodes asserts some libertarians believe prostitution is "morally wrong." But the natural law underpinning libertarianism does not so discriminate. Moral absolutism based upon religious teachings has created such puritanical positions over-and-above the most fundamental, rational foundation for human interactions: the moral universalism of life, liberty and property. These are recognized/protected through libertarian principles such as the right of self-defense, non-initiation of force, and honoring one's contracts. Prostitution is the consensual exercise of one's right to use one's property (body). So, while this may not be condoned by certain religious teachings, it cannot be deemed "wrong" under the natural law the Great Experiment was founded upon. The general public, having been *non-consentually* subjected to 13 years of state indoctrination devoid of honest education in logic, philosophy and ethics, need only have this properly explained to them, to begin to see more rationally and return to these historical, fundamental truths. (Of course, if Rhodes means to mold the LP into a narrow, selective religious dogma-based political party--alienating much of the public holding differing beliefs in the process--he may be on the right track.) If Rhodes succeeds in such folly, the Republicrats will have even less trouble with future, wayward LP candidates, who are no longer able to take the principled high ground that had been their cornerstone differentiation in the political marketplace. {P} Similarly, Rhodes' argument that such Utopian principles are "contrary to the entire history of mankind" is ill-informed. In rebutting the Mises Institute article _Stateless in Somalia and Loving It_, he ignores and fails to counter any of Yomi Kim's well-reasoned explanations for why several of Somalia's significant internal conflicts, after 20 years without any forced government rule, are due to attempts to prevent formation of a central government, rather than failures to govern themselves consensually. Thus, Rhodes has no valid basis to suggest even a modern example of self-government is utopic--let alone that it has been so throughout history. {P} Ironically, the front page of the LP website continues the party's longstanding use of Advocates for Self-Government's World's Smallest Political Quiz, which is broadly embraced within the LP as a rough, 10-issue gauge of a person's political leanings. According to the quiz, the more libertarian one is, the higher their score places them on a two-dimensional, diamond-shaped political spectrum. The lowest score--and resulting position on the chart--indicates a person has a strong agreement with statism. Totalitarianism and anarchism/voluntaryism are not indicated by this simplistic quiz--and properly so, due to the limited number of questions. But if they were, obviously, totalitarians would be scored/placed even further below the statist rating, and anarchists, even higher than libertarians. So, not only is more self-government than Rhodes is comfortable advocating for his fellow Americans attainable, in fact, it is the embodiment of the libertarian, self-government principles the LP was founded upon. {P} Rather than blocking the gunwales with his supposedly pragmatic, politically-expedient compromises, perhaps Rhodes should consider doing an about-face, jumping into a lifeboat, and joining us in the liberty evolution help growing numbers of the general public aboard.